Gary73

The videos are now available on YouTube: S&P Ops http://youtu.be/UyT1eQHGu1w FFS Ops http://youtu.be/Bvnx3bJVEK0 One note: the "Jumpers on the ground" call is no longer used. Sorry about the video quality; no one seems to have the originals in digital format, so they're both transferred from VHS tapes. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Some years ago, USPA and FAA created two videos: Skydiving and Parachute Operations, an introductory video for pilots operating at airports with jump operations, and Flying for Skydive Operations, a how-to video for new jump pilots which focuses on C-182 flying. Those videos are now available free: http://www.filefactory.com/file/5fvqn6bz7r0f/ http://www.filefactory.com/file/4cpmdaxrbnfv/ No copyright issues as long as you don't edit out the FAA info at the beginning. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Here are the links to "Skydiving and Parachute Operations": http://www.mediafire.com/?3oi67um6cq5dcrk http://www.mediafire.com/?supy33syqjbqyqd Mediafire has a 200 MB limit on file sizes for free access, so I used HJSplit to break them up. You can re-join them using JZip or most other similar archiving programs. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Gary, Thanks for the link. That's the video for pilots flying at airports with skydiving operations, and is a good intro for that audience. The one I was referring to is "Flying for Skydive Operations", which was also developed by USPA and FAA around the same time. It's intended for new jump pilots, and focuses on C-182 operations, since that's where they mostly start. USPA used to sell the videos on VHS, but never made the transition to the digital era. I copied the tapes to my PC and sent USPA copies last October. I was kind of hoping that they would make them available as free downloads, but no luck so far. If anyone's interested, FFSO can be downloaded in four parts from: http://www.mediafire.com/?zndfx2b1fnv72wd http://www.mediafire.com/?yvfmnfdmepvo3zu http://www.mediafire.com/?m9xtic6olnor8oh http://www.mediafire.com/?iljtq7qbf79s61k I also have the other video in, well, as high a res as a VHS conversion allows, if you'd like that. No copyright issues for either video, as long as you don't edit out the FAA info at the beginning of the video. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Found the Flight Operations Handbook. It's available at: http://www.skydivingmagazine.com/clearance.htm#Books-on-Para "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Correction: I was finally able to get the Group Member "Skydiving Aircraft OPERATIONS MANUAL" downloaded and it wasn't what I was remembering. Just a bunch of very general stuff. I do have a copy of the old USPA/FAA video on DZ flying that focuses on the 182. It's 630MB, though, so I can't e-mail it. Are there any file-sharing sites left to which I could upload such a large file for free? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

If you're a Group Member dropzone, you can download a decent Ops manual from that area of the USPA website, though I haven't had much luck with downloads from the site lately myself. Para-Gear used to carry the same manual in printed form, but I don't see it in their inventory anymore. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Should have been more specific, I guess. It fogs anytime it's cool and I have the visor closed. I close the visor right before exit, then open it as soon as I know I have a good canopy. Previous lenses have not had this problem; it's just this new one. I found Cat Crap on Amazon. There was only one review, and it was negative, for what that's worth. Likewise with C-Clear. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I've used Z1 full-face helmets for years with little or no lens fogging, but after replacing the lens recently I've had it happen way too often. I e-mailed the manufacturer, but they haven't replied. Any suggestions? Thanks! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I've been using Du Pont Teflon Multi-Use for years with very good results. Spray it on a rag, wipe down the cables (cutaway or reserve), and slide the cables back in. It goes on wet, then dries quickly to a very low-friction, non-sticky finish. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Hi - If any of you have any experience with these radios, either good or bad, please advise in my thread with the same subject in the Gear and Rigging forum. Thanks! Mods - Sorry to double post, but this one seems to fall into both categories. Feel free to lock this one. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Anyone have any experience with these? Most of the other models in this class seem to have a weather-alert feature which will interrupt ANY other traffic when an alert is broadcast on the NOAA frequencies, which doesn't seem like a good feature for a student radio. Thanks! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Yes, they do. They also teach pilots to: 1. Check for fuel contamination, 2. Pay attention when warning lights come on, 3. Make sure the plane is within weight-and-balance limits, and 4. Reject a takeoff when the engine is obviously not developing full power. But that was Cowboy (and his pilot) for you. Too full of arrogant self confidence to pay attention to well-established safety procedures. As for the comment that this was the first Caravan that was used exclusively for skydiving, well, there's plenty of evidence to indicate that skydiving was not the plane's only (or even primary) use. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

"Breakaway" is a good video, but always remember that the only corrective action for a malfunction is to cutaway and pull your reserve. Don't worry about the details of the mal. Is it square? Is it stable? Is it steerable? That's what counts, not the specific type of malfunction. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

This is a fairly common problem, usually caused by a perfectly understandable nervousness about plummeting toward the Earth at over 100 MPH. Experience alone will help you to overcome this, but the process can be sped up by various relaxation techniques. Consciously taking slow, deep breaths from before exit all the way through deployment sounds too simple, but really does help most people. Another approach is to consciously think "altitude, arch, legs, relax" whenever you're not doing anything else, and give your arms and legs a little "loosen-up" shake when you think "relax". Talk with your Instructors about other techniques, but most of all, keep building that experience level! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I like the Galaxy because its face glows in the dark, making night jumps a lot simpler. I also prefer its overall look, but I've had both and they're about equally reliable, in my experience. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Welcome to the sport! Hopefully you'll keep jumping for a long time. To assist in that, I'd strongly recommend that you stick with manufacturer and USPA recommendations, especially in the area of canopy flying, where most of the injuries occur. If you weigh 150 and all your gear put together weighs about 30, that puts your exit weight at about 180. That would give you a wing loading of 0.95 on a 190, which is a bit high even for a student canopy like a Manta, much less an intermediate canopy like a Fusion. If you look at Precision's weight / experience / canopy-size table, they recommend that the Fusion 190 only be used by 180-pound jumpers of "Intermediate" experience or higher. The Fusion canopy size they recommend for a jumper of your weight is 230. Hopefully that answers your question, even if it's not the answer you wanted. An oh, BTW, from now on I'd recommend that you get all your answers from the Instructor who told you "No way.". That way maybe you'll last long enough to be the one telling the noob "No way.". "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I don't think it's in my power to make anything that could beat the FireClaw, but happy birthday anyway! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I may be wrong but I thought aspect ratio was related to chord vs span of the canopy and not height vs width of the cells. Can someone confirm? One of us is severely misunderstanding the situation! You are correct about aspect ratio, but since cells largely maintain the same proportions (height vs. width vs. length) regardless of size, adding cells generally increases the aspect ratio. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Exit weight is your weight right before you exit the plane, so add about 30 lbs for the rig, helmet, etc. As a student, your wing loading should be about 0.8 pounds per square foot. Therefore: 195 + 30 = 225. Add 25% and you get 281, so you'd probably end up jumping a 290 sq. ft. canopy. USPA recommends not jumping a canopy loaded at 1.0 lbs / sqft until you have at least 200 jumps. If more people would follow that advice there would be a lot fewer injuries and fatalities. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

My question was not intended to be any kind of trap. I just want to know why the two cases are being handled so differently when it's pretty obvious that both products have serious problems. As for reliability, you are correct that no type of AAD can be perfect. But consider how many CYPRES units are in service and how long they've been in service. The problem rate is about a thousand times lower with them than with either Vigil or Argus. Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Only on rigs with flap-mounted cutters. Why did Sun Path and Altico (temporarily) ban the units? AAD has (apparently) fixed the cutter-head problem, but still has the fire-when-it-shouldn't problem. Declaring that the unit is working as designed isn't a fix, especially when the design is causing fatalities (see NTSB report on the Mt. Vernon C-206 accident: http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/sjmagtalk524riqdbdqetd55/U04212011120000.pdf Any jump plane door is generally closed at that time, but in my travels I've seen too many cases when they either weren't closed at all or were opened right at 1,000', even before everyone's belts were off. And what about Vigils in Tandem mode? Their sensitive zone is around 2,000'. If an Otter is fully loaded, there are more jumpers near the door than can fit in a C-206. And mostly they sit facing aft, at least when the plane is full. Don't get me wrong; I'm not defending the Argus. Or the Vigil. I wouldn't put either one in any rig of mine even if they were free. I just want to know why the industry hasn't had the same type of reaction the the Vigil's problems. And for that matter, if people are going to keep using Vigils and AAD is going to stick by its story that it's okay for an AAD to fire if the door opens near firing altitude, shouldn't we immediately institute an industry-wide ban on opening doors below 2,500'? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Can anyone explain to me why people are banning Argus AADs but not Vigils? Consider this: The Argus problem is that it sometimes doesn't activate the reserve when it should. Possible consequence = the death of a jumper who was going to die on that jump if he had no AAD at all. The Vigil problem is that it sometimes fires when it shouldn't, for example if someone opens the door around 1,200 feet. Possible consequence = entire plane torn out of the sky, killing all on board. Seems to me that the Vigils are more dangerous, since they can kill people who aren't even using them. So why the difference in the way the two problems are being dealt with? No histrionics, speculation, or politics, please; this is a serious question intended to be taken at face value. I really would like to know the answer. Thanks. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Interesting approach to the problem, but keep in mind that the TSO'd max weight is exit weight - which includes all gear. Since this rig probably weighs about 40 lbs, and the other gear maybe 5 lbs., your student is actually limited to 380 lbs. Then there's the question of whether it's a good idea to put a first-jump student out at a wing loading of 1.29. Considering that USPA recommends a max WL of 1.0 until a jumper has 200 jumps, I'd say no. In fact I'd say hell, no. Remember also that military (HALO) jumpers using this kind of equipment are all Airborne qualified, meaning that they've had extensive training on rough landings. They're also in much better physical condition than the average 380-pounder, and will typically drop or lower their extra equipment before landing, so their legs don't usually have to absorb the force of their canopy landing at max exit weight. So if you follow reasonable guidelines (0.9 WL), what you really have here is a system that's good for typical civilian students up to maybe 260 lbs., not "over 400 lbs.". "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I see that I should have been more specific. No, I don't see anything wrong with travelling around or inviting others to do so. It's when people say things that amount to "You should dump this place and move to my home dropzone." that it seems inappropriate. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan